| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - Blueraider0 (Nov 12, 2010, 2:07 am) |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking.[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved  |
| dc330: Fa44 Results! - DrSwordopolis (Nov 12, 2010, 2:02 am) |
[Reply] |
| dc340 DCI 2010 - S04 Results: Not Dead Yet...I Thi... - garry.bledsoe (Nov 12, 2010, 12:06 am) |
Poland Rolls Into Gda Showing He Isn't Dead Quite Yet
He Receives Help Too
But Don't Cry for Burgundy...He Moves Into The French Riviera
Good Money Says Spain Will Survive 04
Sicily Under Seige?
Byzantium Gets Support from the South But Ukraine Still Gets the Better End of the Deal?
All,
Apologies for being a bit late...today at work was brutal and I didn't have the time that I thought I would have to run the turn before my plans.
A bit of business:
1. I have heard rumors that emails are being forwarded from one player to another (from a third player). Please read my House Rules. This is a] unacceptable and b] not permitted and are grounds for dismissal from the game. Please stop this immediately. I will avoid preaching here but suffice it to say that I think that this has no place in Diplomacy (as a purist).
2. We have quite a few retreats. Let's get those in by Monday the 15th at 6pm CST.
That should cover us.
Retreats are:
Ukranian A Con can retreat to Pis, Smy, Ait, Thr or OTB.
Burgundian A Gda can retreat to Mar, Sil or OTB.
Israelite F MAL can retreat to TOB, Pal, Nap or OTB.
Spanish F SOU can retreat to IFN, Por or OTB.
Lord of the March
Burgundy:
A Bavaria - Tyrol (*Fails*)
F Bornholm Sea - Denmark (*Bounce*)
A Brittany Hold
F Brussels - Anglican Sea (*Bounce*)
A Dijon - Schwyz
A Gascony - Languedoc
A Gdansk Supports A Masuria - Warsaw (*Dislodged*)
A Ruhr - Bavaria (*Fails*)
A Saxony Supports A Gdansk
A Valencia - Gibraltar
Sicily:
F Morroco - South Atlantic Ocean
F Naples - Apulia
A Piedmont Supports A Bavaria - Tyrol
A Sahara - Tripolitania (*Bounce*)
F Tunisia - Malta Sea
F Tyrrhenian Sea Supports F Tunisia - Malta Sea
A Venezia - Umbria
F Western Mediterranean Supports F Morroco - South Atlantic Ocean
Eire:
F Irish Sea - English Channel
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean Supports F Irish Sea - English Channel
F Santander - South Atlantic Ocean (*Fails*)
F Skagerrak - Denmark (*Bounce*)
F Sweden - Bornholm Sea (*Fails*)
F Wessex - Anglican Sea (*Bounce*)
A Yorkshire - Cymru
Hungary:
F Adriatic Sea Supports A Croatia - Venezia
A Austria - Croatia
A Bohemia Supports A Tyrol
A Croatia - Venezia
A Tyrol Supports A Croatia - Venezia (*Cut*)
Israel:
F Aegean Sea - Pylos Sea
A Cilicia Supports F Armenia
F Cyrenaica - Tripolitania (*Bounce*)
F Malta Sea - Tyrrhenian Sea (*Dislodged*)
A Turkestan - Iran
Poland:
F Baltic Sea - Gdansk
A Masuria Supports F Baltic Sea - Gdansk
Spain:
A Catalonia - Estremadura
F South Atlantic Ocean Hold (*Dislodged*)
Ukraine:
A Constantinople Supports A Cilicia - Anatolia (*Dislodged*)
F East Black Sea - Armenia (*Fails*)
F Georgia Supports F East Black Sea - Armenia
A Karelia - Muscovy
A Rumania - Bulgaria
A Warsaw Supports F Baltic Sea - Gdansk
F West Black Sea Supports A Rumania - Bulgaria
Byzantium:
A Anatolia Supports A Bulgaria - Constantinople
F Armenia Supports A Anatolia (*Cut*)
A Bulgaria - Constantinople
F Ionian Sea Supports A Croatia - Apulia (*Void*)
F Smyrna - Aegean Sea[Reply] |
| DC 341: Deadline Tomorrow - AceRimmer (Nov 11, 2010, 8:43 pm) |
| Late reminder, but the deadline is tomorrow (Friday) at 10:00 a.m. CST (16:00 GMT). [Reply] |
| dc330: Fa44 Results! - dknemeyer (Nov 11, 2010, 7:01 pm) |
Since you sent this to the list, consider them submitted. There are now three things to vote on:
3-way IPT
4-way BIPT
DIAS
Dirk
On Nov 11, 2010, at 7:56 PM, DavidCheGould wrote:
Dirk,
Am I able to submit two other draw proposals: a DIAS and a four-way excluding Spain?
David
---- Dirk Knemeyer
wrote:
> Friends,
>
> As the war closes in on its tenth year, will the belligerents reach an accord and find peace?
>
> Of course not!
>
> Another season of bloodshed is upon us...and unfortunately that marks the death of two powers and one player. France and the Soviets both are eliminated. While Karsten will fight on with the Republicans, we bid adieu to Nick. A great sport, Nick was knocked down early yet continued playing with elan and keeping the game moving. An excellent player to have in the game. Thanks Nick.
>
> BUT, there is another opportunity to make love not war: a 3-way Italy-Poland-Turkey draw has been proposed. Be sure to vote yea or nay with your SPRING orders!
>
> A schedule reminder: I am NOT planning to delay the game for the U.S. holiday Thanksgiving. If any of our players need a break on its account - or if people from other countries have similarly time-sucking holidays, please make sure there is at least one week's notice before a requested break.
>
> There are only two retreats this season, both Turkish: A Rumania can retreat to Dobruja, Bulgaria or OTB. A Serbia can retreat to Bosnia, Bulgaria, Thrace or OTB. If Turkey takes both retreats he will have zero builds and disbands, whereas he will receive a build for each unit he chooses to disband instead. I took the liberty of disbanding Soviet A Moscow as its retreat will have no bearing on the situation.
>
> Retreats and builds (which may be contingent on Turkish retreats) are due in just under 24 hours!
>
> ***
> PLAYERS
> Britain - sunchung / Sun Chung / sun.chung(at)gmail.com
> France - DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
> Germany - charlesf / Charles Feaux de la Croix / charlesf(at)web.de
> Italy (and Nationalist Spain) - raistlin / David Gould / davidchegould(at)bigpond.com
> Poland - smileyrob / Robert Stein / smileyrob68(at)gmail.com
> Turkey - Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
> USSR (and Republican Spain) - Nitsch / Karsten Nitsch / karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de
>
> ***
> HEADLINES
> A Minor Disaster: French, Soviets are exterminated!
> British consolidate their position, again lose middle easter foothold
> Italy vaults into continental control with a big season
> Poland = the new superpower? Ascendent nation powers forward
> Turks fortunate to claim Suez as disaster strikes in the Balkans
> Gutty Republicans claim Brest and will build again!
> ***
>
> Italian Press:
>
> In a concilatory gesture towards all his foes, Mussolini has put all Polish invaders of Czechia to the sword and massacred the peace-loving Turks of Serbia.
>
> It is hoped by the world that these peaceful moves will at last end this conflict, which has torn Europe asunder and cast its shadow as far as China, Australia and South America.
>
> The massacres were filmed and are available in NewsReel format. All proceeds from their sale will go to the Returned Services League of Italy or to Mussolini's monuments-to-himself building program - his choice, of course
>
> ***
> Britain:
> A Belgium Supports A Netherlands - Rhineland
> F Berlin - Hamburg
> F Hamburg - Netherlands
> F Ireland Supports F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
> A Netherlands - Rhineland
> F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
> F English Channel Supports F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
> F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
>
> France:
> A Brest - Edinburgh
>
> Italy:
> A Austria Supports A Czechia - Slovakia
> A Burgundy - Paris
> A Croatia - Serbia
> A Czechia - Slovakia
> A Hungary Supports A Croatia - Serbia
> A Lorraine Supports A Picardy - Rhineland
> F Morocco Supports F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
> A Munich - Czechia
> A Picardy - Rhineland
> F Adriatic Sea - Albania
> F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
> F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
>
> Poland:
> A Archangel - Siberia
> A Byelorussia Supports A Leningrad - Moscow
> A Cracow Supports A Transylvania - Rumania
> A Greater Poland - Silesia
> A Leningrad - Moscow
> A Silesia - Czechia
> A Slovakia - Transylvania
> F Sweden - Denmark
> A Transylvania - Rumania
> A Western Ukraine - Eastern Ukraine
>
> Turkey:
> A Eastern Ukraine - Western Ukraine
> A Egypt Supports F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
> A Iran Hold
> A Rumania Supports A Serbia - Transylvania
> A Serbia - Transylvania
> A Siberia - Archangel
> F Stalingrad(wc) - Black Sea
> F Aegean Sea - Greece
> F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
> F Ionian Sea Hold
> F Libyan Sea Supports F Ionian Sea
>
> USSR:
> A Moscow Supports A Siberia - Archangel
>
> Republican_Spain:
> A Gascony Supports F South-Western Approaches - Brest
> A Madrid - Gibraltar
> F Portugal - South-Western Approaches
> F South-Western Approaches - Brest
>
> ***
> Winter 1944 Builds:
>
> Britain
> Remove
>
> Italy
> Build
> Build
>
> Poland
> Build
> Build
> Build
>
> Turkey
> Build?
> Build?
>
> Republican_Spain
> Build
>
> ***
> Ownership of supply centers
>
> Britain: Belgium, Berlin, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Liverpool, London, Netherlands.
> France: None.
> Germany: None.
> Italy: Algiers, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Marsailles, Milan, Morocco, Munich, Naples, Paris, Rome, Serbia, Switzerland.
> Poland: Cracow, Denmark, Finland, Gdynia, Latvia, Leningrad, Lithuania, Moscow, Norway, Rumania, Sweden, Warsaw.
> Turkey: Ankara, Beirut, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Istanbul, Izmir, Stalingrad, Suez, Tripoli.
> USSR: None.
> Republican_Spain: Brest, Burgos, Madrid, Portugal, Valencia.
>
> Britain: 7 Supply centers, 8 Units: Remove 1.
> France: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
> Germany: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
> Italy: 14 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 2.
> Poland: 12 Supply centers, 9 Units: Build 3.
> Turkey: 12 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 0.
> USSR: 0 Supply center, 0 Units: Remove 0.
> Republican_Spain: 5 Supply centers, 4 Units: Build 1.
>
> ***
> Upcoming Deadlines (all orders are due at 5 PM EST, GMT -5)
> Winter 1944 Retreats and Adjustments, Friday November 12
> Spring 1945 Prelims, Monday November 15
> Spring 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 16
> Summer 1945 Retreats, Thursday November 18
> Fall 1945 Prelims, Friday November 19
> Fall 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 23
> ***[Reply] |
| Fwd: dc330: Fa44 Results! - dknemeyer (Nov 11, 2010, 6:59 pm) |
Hi Everyone,
Actually the Soviets DO have a retreat that keeps them in the game, into vacant Stalingrad! Duh.
So an additional retreat is for the not-yet-eliminated Soviets: can retreat to Stalingrad or Kazakhstan or OTB.
This obviously has implications on Turkey: a retreat to Stalingrad will require a Turkish disband. While we must assume Karsten will elect to remain alive, Wladimir please do submit two sets of orders: one for your losing Stalingrad and having a disband, and one for your retaining it.
Thanks,
Dirk
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dirk Knemeyer <dirk(at)knemeyer.com>
Date: November 11, 2010 7:35:52 PM EST
To: dc330(at)knemeyer.com
Subject: dc330: Fa44 Results!
Friends,
As the war closes in on its tenth year, will the belligerents reach an accord and find peace?
Of course not!
Another season of bloodshed is upon us...and unfortunately that marks the death of two powers and one player. France and the Soviets both are eliminated. While Karsten will fight on with the Republicans, we bid adieu to Nick. A great sport, Nick was knocked down early yet continued playing with elan and keeping the game moving. An excellent player to have in the game. Thanks Nick.
BUT, there is another opportunity to make love not war: a 3-way Italy-Poland-Turkey draw has been proposed. Be sure to vote yea or nay with your SPRING orders!
A schedule reminder: I am NOT planning to delay the game for the U.S. holiday Thanksgiving. If any of our players need a break on its account - or if people from other countries have similarly time-sucking holidays, please make sure there is at least one week's notice before a requested break.
There are only two retreats this season, both Turkish: A Rumania can retreat to Dobruja, Bulgaria or OTB. A Serbia can retreat to Bosnia, Bulgaria, Thrace or OTB. If Turkey takes both retreats he will have zero builds and disbands, whereas he will receive a build for each unit he chooses to disband instead. I took the liberty of disbanding Soviet A Moscow as its retreat will have no bearing on the situation.
Retreats and builds (which may be contingent on Turkish retreats) are due in just under 24 hours!
***
PLAYERS
Britain - sunchung / Sun Chung / sun.chung(at)gmail.com
France - DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
Germany - charlesf / Charles Feaux de la Croix / charlesf(at)web.de
Italy (and Nationalist Spain) - raistlin / David Gould / davidchegould(at)bigpond.com
Poland - smileyrob / Robert Stein / smileyrob68(at)gmail.com
Turkey - Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
USSR (and Republican Spain) - Nitsch / Karsten Nitsch / karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de
***
HEADLINES
A Minor Disaster: French, Soviets are exterminated!
British consolidate their position, again lose middle easter foothold
Italy vaults into continental control with a big season
Poland = the new superpower? Ascendent nation powers forward
Turks fortunate to claim Suez as disaster strikes in the Balkans
Gutty Republicans claim Brest and will build again!
***
Italian Press:
In a concilatory gesture towards all his foes, Mussolini has put all Polish invaders of Czechia to the sword and massacred the peace-loving Turks of Serbia.
It is hoped by the world that these peaceful moves will at last end this conflict, which has torn Europe asunder and cast its shadow as far as China, Australia and South America.
The massacres were filmed and are available in NewsReel format. All proceeds from their sale will go to the Returned Services League of Italy or to Mussolini's monuments-to-himself building program - his choice, of course
***
Britain:
A Belgium Supports A Netherlands - Rhineland
F Berlin - Hamburg
F Hamburg - Netherlands
F Ireland Supports F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
A Netherlands - Rhineland
F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
F English Channel Supports F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
France:
A Brest - Edinburgh
Italy:
A Austria Supports A Czechia - Slovakia
A Burgundy - Paris
A Croatia - Serbia
A Czechia - Slovakia
A Hungary Supports A Croatia - Serbia
A Lorraine Supports A Picardy - Rhineland
F Morocco Supports F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
A Munich - Czechia
A Picardy - Rhineland
F Adriatic Sea - Albania
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
Poland:
A Archangel - Siberia
A Byelorussia Supports A Leningrad - Moscow
A Cracow Supports A Transylvania - Rumania
A Greater Poland - Silesia
A Leningrad - Moscow
A Silesia - Czechia
A Slovakia - Transylvania
F Sweden - Denmark
A Transylvania - Rumania
A Western Ukraine - Eastern Ukraine
Turkey:
A Eastern Ukraine - Western Ukraine
A Egypt Supports F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
A Iran Hold
A Rumania Supports A Serbia - Transylvania
A Serbia - Transylvania
A Siberia - Archangel
F Stalingrad(wc) - Black Sea
F Aegean Sea - Greece
F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
F Ionian Sea Hold
F Libyan Sea Supports F Ionian Sea
USSR:
A Moscow Supports A Siberia - Archangel
Republican_Spain:
A Gascony Supports F South-Western Approaches - Brest
A Madrid - Gibraltar
F Portugal - South-Western Approaches
F South-Western Approaches - Brest
***
Winter 1944 Builds:
Britain
Remove
Italy
Build
Build
Poland
Build
Build
Build
Turkey
Build?
Build?
Republican_Spain
Build
***
Ownership of supply centers
Britain: Belgium, Berlin, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Liverpool, London, Netherlands.
France: None.
Germany: None.
Italy: Algiers, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Marsailles, Milan, Morocco, Munich, Naples, Paris, Rome, Serbia, Switzerland.
Poland: Cracow, Denmark, Finland, Gdynia, Latvia, Leningrad, Lithuania, Moscow, Norway, Rumania, Sweden, Warsaw.
Turkey: Ankara, Beirut, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Istanbul, Izmir, Stalingrad, Suez, Tripoli.
USSR: None.
Republican_Spain: Brest, Burgos, Madrid, Portugal, Valencia.
Britain: 7 Supply centers, 8 Units: Remove 1.
France: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Germany: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Italy: 14 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 2.
Poland: 12 Supply centers, 9 Units: Build 3.
Turkey: 12 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 0.
USSR: 0 Supply center, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Republican_Spain: 5 Supply centers, 4 Units: Build 1.
***
Upcoming Deadlines (all orders are due at 5 PM EST, GMT -5)
Winter 1944 Retreats and Adjustments, Friday November 12
Spring 1945 Prelims, Monday November 15
Spring 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 16
Summer 1945 Retreats, Thursday November 18
Fall 1945 Prelims, Friday November 19
Fall 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 23
***[Reply] |
| dc330: Fa44 Results! - raistlin (Nov 11, 2010, 6:56 pm) |
Dirk,
Am I able to submit two other draw proposals: a DIAS and a four-way excluding Spain?
David
---- Dirk Knemeyer
wrote:
Friends,
As the war closes in on its tenth year, will the belligerents reach an accord and find peace?
Of course not!
Another season of bloodshed is upon us...and unfortunately that marks the death of two powers and one player. France and the Soviets both are eliminated. While Karsten will fight on with the Republicans, we bid adieu to Nick. A great sport, Nick was knocked down early yet continued playing with elan and keeping the game moving. An excellent player to have in the game. Thanks Nick.
BUT, there is another opportunity to make love not war: a 3-way Italy-Poland-Turkey draw has been proposed. Be sure to vote yea or nay with your SPRING orders!
A schedule reminder: I am NOT planning to delay the game for the U.S. holiday Thanksgiving. If any of our players need a break on its account - or if people from other countries have similarly time-sucking holidays, please make sure there is at least one week's notice before a requested break.
There are only two retreats this season, both Turkish: A Rumania can retreat to Dobruja, Bulgaria or OTB. A Serbia can retreat to Bosnia, Bulgaria, Thrace or OTB. If Turkey takes both retreats he will have zero builds and disbands, whereas he will receive a build for each unit he chooses to disband instead. I took the liberty of disbanding Soviet A Moscow as its retreat will have no bearing on the situation.
Retreats and builds (which may be contingent on Turkish retreats) are due in just under 24 hours!
***
PLAYERS
Britain - sunchung / Sun Chung / sun.chung(at)gmail.com
France - DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
Germany - charlesf / Charles Feaux de la Croix / charlesf(at)web.de
Italy (and Nationalist Spain) - raistlin / David Gould / davidchegould(at)bigpond.com
Poland - smileyrob / Robert Stein / smileyrob68(at)gmail.com
Turkey - Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
USSR (and Republican Spain) - Nitsch / Karsten Nitsch / karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de
***
HEADLINES
A Minor Disaster: French, Soviets are exterminated!
British consolidate their position, again lose middle easter foothold
Italy vaults into continental control with a big season
Poland = the new superpower? Ascendent nation powers forward
Turks fortunate to claim Suez as disaster strikes in the Balkans
Gutty Republicans claim Brest and will build again!
***
Italian Press:
In a concilatory gesture towards all his foes, Mussolini has put all Polish invaders of Czechia to the sword and massacred the peace-loving Turks of Serbia.
It is hoped by the world that these peaceful moves will at last end this conflict, which has torn Europe asunder and cast its shadow as far as China, Australia and South America.
The massacres were filmed and are available in NewsReel format. All proceeds from their sale will go to the Returned Services League of Italy or to Mussolini's monuments-to-himself building program - his choice, of course
***
Britain:
A Belgium Supports A Netherlands - Rhineland
F Berlin - Hamburg
F Hamburg - Netherlands
F Ireland Supports F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
A Netherlands - Rhineland
F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
F English Channel Supports F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
France:
A Brest - Edinburgh
Italy:
A Austria Supports A Czechia - Slovakia
A Burgundy - Paris
A Croatia - Serbia
A Czechia - Slovakia
A Hungary Supports A Croatia - Serbia
A Lorraine Supports A Picardy - Rhineland
F Morocco Supports F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
A Munich - Czechia
A Picardy - Rhineland
F Adriatic Sea - Albania
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
Poland:
A Archangel - Siberia
A Byelorussia Supports A Leningrad - Moscow
A Cracow Supports A Transylvania - Rumania
A Greater Poland - Silesia
A Leningrad - Moscow
A Silesia - Czechia
A Slovakia - Transylvania
F Sweden - Denmark
A Transylvania - Rumania
A Western Ukraine - Eastern Ukraine
Turkey:
A Eastern Ukraine - Western Ukraine
A Egypt Supports F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
A Iran Hold
A Rumania Supports A Serbia - Transylvania
A Serbia - Transylvania
A Siberia - Archangel
F Stalingrad(wc) - Black Sea
F Aegean Sea - Greece
F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
F Ionian Sea Hold
F Libyan Sea Supports F Ionian Sea
USSR:
A Moscow Supports A Siberia - Archangel
Republican_Spain:
A Gascony Supports F South-Western Approaches - Brest
A Madrid - Gibraltar
F Portugal - South-Western Approaches
F South-Western Approaches - Brest
***
Winter 1944 Builds:
Britain
Remove
Italy
Build
Build
Poland
Build
Build
Build
Turkey
Build?
Build?
Republican_Spain
Build
***
Ownership of supply centers
Britain: Belgium, Berlin, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Liverpool, London, Netherlands.
France: None.
Germany: None.
Italy: Algiers, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Marsailles, Milan, Morocco, Munich, Naples, Paris, Rome, Serbia, Switzerland.
Poland: Cracow, Denmark, Finland, Gdynia, Latvia, Leningrad, Lithuania, Moscow, Norway, Rumania, Sweden, Warsaw.
Turkey: Ankara, Beirut, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Istanbul, Izmir, Stalingrad, Suez, Tripoli.
USSR: None.
Republican_Spain: Brest, Burgos, Madrid, Portugal, Valencia.
Britain: 7 Supply centers, 8 Units: Remove 1.
France: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Germany: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Italy: 14 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 2.
Poland: 12 Supply centers, 9 Units: Build 3.
Turkey: 12 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 0.
USSR: 0 Supply center, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Republican_Spain: 5 Supply centers, 4 Units: Build 1.
***
Upcoming Deadlines (all orders are due at 5 PM EST, GMT -5)
Winter 1944 Retreats and Adjustments, Friday November 12
Spring 1945 Prelims, Monday November 15
Spring 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 16
Summer 1945 Retreats, Thursday November 18
Fall 1945 Prelims, Friday November 19
Fall 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 23
***[Reply] |
| dc330: Fa44 Results! - dknemeyer (Nov 11, 2010, 6:35 pm) |
Friends,
As the war closes in on its tenth year, will the belligerents reach an accord and find peace?
Of course not!
Another season of bloodshed is upon us...and unfortunately that marks the death of two powers and one player. France and the Soviets both are eliminated. While Karsten will fight on with the Republicans, we bid adieu to Nick. A great sport, Nick was knocked down early yet continued playing with elan and keeping the game moving. An excellent player to have in the game. Thanks Nick.
BUT, there is another opportunity to make love not war: a 3-way Italy-Poland-Turkey draw has been proposed. Be sure to vote yea or nay with your SPRING orders!
A schedule reminder: I am NOT planning to delay the game for the U.S. holiday Thanksgiving. If any of our players need a break on its account - or if people from other countries have similarly time-sucking holidays, please make sure there is at least one week's notice before a requested break.
There are only two retreats this season, both Turkish: A Rumania can retreat to Dobruja, Bulgaria or OTB. A Serbia can retreat to Bosnia, Bulgaria, Thrace or OTB. If Turkey takes both retreats he will have zero builds and disbands, whereas he will receive a build for each unit he chooses to disband instead. I took the liberty of disbanding Soviet A Moscow as its retreat will have no bearing on the situation.
Retreats and builds (which may be contingent on Turkish retreats) are due in just under 24 hours!
***
PLAYERS
Britain - sunchung / Sun Chung / sun.chung(at)gmail.com
France - DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
Germany - charlesf / Charles Feaux de la Croix / charlesf(at)web.de
Italy (and Nationalist Spain) - raistlin / David Gould / davidchegould(at)bigpond.com
Poland - smileyrob / Robert Stein / smileyrob68(at)gmail.com
Turkey - Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
USSR (and Republican Spain) - Nitsch / Karsten Nitsch / karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de
***
HEADLINES
A Minor Disaster: French, Soviets are exterminated!
British consolidate their position, again lose middle easter foothold
Italy vaults into continental control with a big season
Poland = the new superpower? Ascendent nation powers forward
Turks fortunate to claim Suez as disaster strikes in the Balkans
Gutty Republicans claim Brest and will build again!
***
Italian Press:
In a concilatory gesture towards all his foes, Mussolini has put all Polish invaders of Czechia to the sword and massacred the peace-loving Turks of Serbia.
It is hoped by the world that these peaceful moves will at last end this conflict, which has torn Europe asunder and cast its shadow as far as China, Australia and South America.
The massacres were filmed and are available in NewsReel format. All proceeds from their sale will go to the Returned Services League of Italy or to Mussolini's monuments-to-himself building program - his choice, of course
***
Britain:
A Belgium Supports A Netherlands - Rhineland
F Berlin - Hamburg
F Hamburg - Netherlands
F Ireland Supports F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
A Netherlands - Rhineland
F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
F English Channel Supports F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
France:
A Brest - Edinburgh
Italy:
A Austria Supports A Czechia - Slovakia
A Burgundy - Paris
A Croatia - Serbia
A Czechia - Slovakia
A Hungary Supports A Croatia - Serbia
A Lorraine Supports A Picardy - Rhineland
F Morocco Supports F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
A Munich - Czechia
A Picardy - Rhineland
F Adriatic Sea - Albania
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
Poland:
A Archangel - Siberia
A Byelorussia Supports A Leningrad - Moscow
A Cracow Supports A Transylvania - Rumania
A Greater Poland - Silesia
A Leningrad - Moscow
A Silesia - Czechia
A Slovakia - Transylvania
F Sweden - Denmark
A Transylvania - Rumania
A Western Ukraine - Eastern Ukraine
Turkey:
A Eastern Ukraine - Western Ukraine
A Egypt Supports F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
A Iran Hold
A Rumania Supports A Serbia - Transylvania
A Serbia - Transylvania
A Siberia - Archangel
F Stalingrad(wc) - Black Sea
F Aegean Sea - Greece
F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
F Ionian Sea Hold
F Libyan Sea Supports F Ionian Sea
USSR:
A Moscow Supports A Siberia - Archangel
Republican_Spain:
A Gascony Supports F South-Western Approaches - Brest
A Madrid - Gibraltar
F Portugal - South-Western Approaches
F South-Western Approaches - Brest
***
Winter 1944 Builds:
Britain
Remove
Italy
Build
Build
Poland
Build
Build
Build
Turkey
Build?
Build?
Republican_Spain
Build
***
Ownership of supply centers
Britain: Belgium, Berlin, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Liverpool, London, Netherlands.
France: None.
Germany: None.
Italy: Algiers, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Marsailles, Milan, Morocco, Munich, Naples, Paris, Rome, Serbia, Switzerland.
Poland: Cracow, Denmark, Finland, Gdynia, Latvia, Leningrad, Lithuania, Moscow, Norway, Rumania, Sweden, Warsaw.
Turkey: Ankara, Beirut, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Istanbul, Izmir, Stalingrad, Suez, Tripoli.
USSR: None.
Republican_Spain: Brest, Burgos, Madrid, Portugal, Valencia.
Britain: 7 Supply centers, 8 Units: Remove 1.
France: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Germany: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Italy: 14 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 2.
Poland: 12 Supply centers, 9 Units: Build 3.
Turkey: 12 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 0.
USSR: 0 Supply center, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Republican_Spain: 5 Supply centers, 4 Units: Build 1.
***
Upcoming Deadlines (all orders are due at 5 PM EST, GMT -5)
Winter 1944 Retreats and Adjustments, Friday November 12
Spring 1945 Prelims, Monday November 15
Spring 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 16
Summer 1945 Retreats, Thursday November 18
Fall 1945 Prelims, Friday November 19
Fall 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 23
***[Reply] |
| dc330: Fa44 Results! (dc330) raistlin Nov 11, 06:56 pm |
Dirk,
Am I able to submit two other draw proposals: a DIAS and a four-way excluding Spain?
David
---- Dirk Knemeyer
wrote:
Friends,
As the war closes in on its tenth year, will the belligerents reach an accord and find peace?
Of course not!
Another season of bloodshed is upon us...and unfortunately that marks the death of two powers and one player. France and the Soviets both are eliminated. While Karsten will fight on with the Republicans, we bid adieu to Nick. A great sport, Nick was knocked down early yet continued playing with elan and keeping the game moving. An excellent player to have in the game. Thanks Nick.
BUT, there is another opportunity to make love not war: a 3-way Italy-Poland-Turkey draw has been proposed. Be sure to vote yea or nay with your SPRING orders!
A schedule reminder: I am NOT planning to delay the game for the U.S. holiday Thanksgiving. If any of our players need a break on its account - or if people from other countries have similarly time-sucking holidays, please make sure there is at least one week's notice before a requested break.
There are only two retreats this season, both Turkish: A Rumania can retreat to Dobruja, Bulgaria or OTB. A Serbia can retreat to Bosnia, Bulgaria, Thrace or OTB. If Turkey takes both retreats he will have zero builds and disbands, whereas he will receive a build for each unit he chooses to disband instead. I took the liberty of disbanding Soviet A Moscow as its retreat will have no bearing on the situation.
Retreats and builds (which may be contingent on Turkish retreats) are due in just under 24 hours!
***
PLAYERS
Britain - sunchung / Sun Chung / sun.chung(at)gmail.com
France - DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
Germany - charlesf / Charles Feaux de la Croix / charlesf(at)web.de
Italy (and Nationalist Spain) - raistlin / David Gould / davidchegould(at)bigpond.com
Poland - smileyrob / Robert Stein / smileyrob68(at)gmail.com
Turkey - Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
USSR (and Republican Spain) - Nitsch / Karsten Nitsch / karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de
***
HEADLINES
A Minor Disaster: French, Soviets are exterminated!
British consolidate their position, again lose middle easter foothold
Italy vaults into continental control with a big season
Poland = the new superpower? Ascendent nation powers forward
Turks fortunate to claim Suez as disaster strikes in the Balkans
Gutty Republicans claim Brest and will build again!
***
Italian Press:
In a concilatory gesture towards all his foes, Mussolini has put all Polish invaders of Czechia to the sword and massacred the peace-loving Turks of Serbia.
It is hoped by the world that these peaceful moves will at last end this conflict, which has torn Europe asunder and cast its shadow as far as China, Australia and South America.
The massacres were filmed and are available in NewsReel format. All proceeds from their sale will go to the Returned Services League of Italy or to Mussolini's monuments-to-himself building program - his choice, of course
***
Britain:
A Belgium Supports A Netherlands - Rhineland
F Berlin - Hamburg
F Hamburg - Netherlands
F Ireland Supports F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
A Netherlands - Rhineland
F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
F English Channel Supports F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
France:
A Brest - Edinburgh
Italy:
A Austria Supports A Czechia - Slovakia
A Burgundy - Paris
A Croatia - Serbia
A Czechia - Slovakia
A Hungary Supports A Croatia - Serbia
A Lorraine Supports A Picardy - Rhineland
F Morocco Supports F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
A Munich - Czechia
A Picardy - Rhineland
F Adriatic Sea - Albania
F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
Poland:
A Archangel - Siberia
A Byelorussia Supports A Leningrad - Moscow
A Cracow Supports A Transylvania - Rumania
A Greater Poland - Silesia
A Leningrad - Moscow
A Silesia - Czechia
A Slovakia - Transylvania
F Sweden - Denmark
A Transylvania - Rumania
A Western Ukraine - Eastern Ukraine
Turkey:
A Eastern Ukraine - Western Ukraine
A Egypt Supports F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
A Iran Hold
A Rumania Supports A Serbia - Transylvania
A Serbia - Transylvania
A Siberia - Archangel
F Stalingrad(wc) - Black Sea
F Aegean Sea - Greece
F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
F Ionian Sea Hold
F Libyan Sea Supports F Ionian Sea
USSR:
A Moscow Supports A Siberia - Archangel
Republican_Spain:
A Gascony Supports F South-Western Approaches - Brest
A Madrid - Gibraltar
F Portugal - South-Western Approaches
F South-Western Approaches - Brest
***
Winter 1944 Builds:
Britain
Remove
Italy
Build
Build
Poland
Build
Build
Build
Turkey
Build?
Build?
Republican_Spain
Build
***
Ownership of supply centers
Britain: Belgium, Berlin, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Liverpool, London, Netherlands.
France: None.
Germany: None.
Italy: Algiers, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Marsailles, Milan, Morocco, Munich, Naples, Paris, Rome, Serbia, Switzerland.
Poland: Cracow, Denmark, Finland, Gdynia, Latvia, Leningrad, Lithuania, Moscow, Norway, Rumania, Sweden, Warsaw.
Turkey: Ankara, Beirut, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Istanbul, Izmir, Stalingrad, Suez, Tripoli.
USSR: None.
Republican_Spain: Brest, Burgos, Madrid, Portugal, Valencia.
Britain: 7 Supply centers, 8 Units: Remove 1.
France: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Germany: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Italy: 14 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 2.
Poland: 12 Supply centers, 9 Units: Build 3.
Turkey: 12 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 0.
USSR: 0 Supply center, 0 Units: Remove 0.
Republican_Spain: 5 Supply centers, 4 Units: Build 1.
***
Upcoming Deadlines (all orders are due at 5 PM EST, GMT -5)
Winter 1944 Retreats and Adjustments, Friday November 12
Spring 1945 Prelims, Monday November 15
Spring 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 16
Summer 1945 Retreats, Thursday November 18
Fall 1945 Prelims, Friday November 19
Fall 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 23
*** |
| dc330: Fa44 Results! (dc330) dknemeyer Nov 11, 07:01 pm |
Since you sent this to the list, consider them submitted. There are now three things to vote on:
3-way IPT
4-way BIPT
DIAS
Dirk
On Nov 11, 2010, at 7:56 PM, DavidCheGould wrote:
Dirk,
Am I able to submit two other draw proposals: a DIAS and a four-way excluding Spain?
David
---- Dirk Knemeyer
wrote:
> Friends,
>
> As the war closes in on its tenth year, will the belligerents reach an accord and find peace?
>
> Of course not!
>
> Another season of bloodshed is upon us...and unfortunately that marks the death of two powers and one player. France and the Soviets both are eliminated. While Karsten will fight on with the Republicans, we bid adieu to Nick. A great sport, Nick was knocked down early yet continued playing with elan and keeping the game moving. An excellent player to have in the game. Thanks Nick.
>
> BUT, there is another opportunity to make love not war: a 3-way Italy-Poland-Turkey draw has been proposed. Be sure to vote yea or nay with your SPRING orders!
>
> A schedule reminder: I am NOT planning to delay the game for the U.S. holiday Thanksgiving. If any of our players need a break on its account - or if people from other countries have similarly time-sucking holidays, please make sure there is at least one week's notice before a requested break.
>
> There are only two retreats this season, both Turkish: A Rumania can retreat to Dobruja, Bulgaria or OTB. A Serbia can retreat to Bosnia, Bulgaria, Thrace or OTB. If Turkey takes both retreats he will have zero builds and disbands, whereas he will receive a build for each unit he chooses to disband instead. I took the liberty of disbanding Soviet A Moscow as its retreat will have no bearing on the situation.
>
> Retreats and builds (which may be contingent on Turkish retreats) are due in just under 24 hours!
>
> ***
> PLAYERS
> Britain - sunchung / Sun Chung / sun.chung(at)gmail.com
> France - DrSwordopolis / Nick Powell / nick.s.powell(at)gmail.com
> Germany - charlesf / Charles Feaux de la Croix / charlesf(at)web.de
> Italy (and Nationalist Spain) - raistlin / David Gould / davidchegould(at)bigpond.com
> Poland - smileyrob / Robert Stein / smileyrob68(at)gmail.com
> Turkey - Wladimir7 / Wladimir Mysonski / wmysonski(at)gmail.com
> USSR (and Republican Spain) - Nitsch / Karsten Nitsch / karsten.nitsch(at)gmx.de
>
> ***
> HEADLINES
> A Minor Disaster: French, Soviets are exterminated!
> British consolidate their position, again lose middle easter foothold
> Italy vaults into continental control with a big season
> Poland = the new superpower? Ascendent nation powers forward
> Turks fortunate to claim Suez as disaster strikes in the Balkans
> Gutty Republicans claim Brest and will build again!
> ***
>
> Italian Press:
>
> In a concilatory gesture towards all his foes, Mussolini has put all Polish invaders of Czechia to the sword and massacred the peace-loving Turks of Serbia.
>
> It is hoped by the world that these peaceful moves will at last end this conflict, which has torn Europe asunder and cast its shadow as far as China, Australia and South America.
>
> The massacres were filmed and are available in NewsReel format. All proceeds from their sale will go to the Returned Services League of Italy or to Mussolini's monuments-to-himself building program - his choice, of course
>
> ***
> Britain:
> A Belgium Supports A Netherlands - Rhineland
> F Berlin - Hamburg
> F Hamburg - Netherlands
> F Ireland Supports F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
> A Netherlands - Rhineland
> F Suez - Atlantic Ocean
> F English Channel Supports F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
> F Irish Sea - South-Western Approaches
>
> France:
> A Brest - Edinburgh
>
> Italy:
> A Austria Supports A Czechia - Slovakia
> A Burgundy - Paris
> A Croatia - Serbia
> A Czechia - Slovakia
> A Hungary Supports A Croatia - Serbia
> A Lorraine Supports A Picardy - Rhineland
> F Morocco Supports F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
> A Munich - Czechia
> A Picardy - Rhineland
> F Adriatic Sea - Albania
> F Tyrrhenian Sea - Western Mediterranean
> F Western Mediterranean - Gibraltar
>
> Poland:
> A Archangel - Siberia
> A Byelorussia Supports A Leningrad - Moscow
> A Cracow Supports A Transylvania - Rumania
> A Greater Poland - Silesia
> A Leningrad - Moscow
> A Silesia - Czechia
> A Slovakia - Transylvania
> F Sweden - Denmark
> A Transylvania - Rumania
> A Western Ukraine - Eastern Ukraine
>
> Turkey:
> A Eastern Ukraine - Western Ukraine
> A Egypt Supports F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
> A Iran Hold
> A Rumania Supports A Serbia - Transylvania
> A Serbia - Transylvania
> A Siberia - Archangel
> F Stalingrad(wc) - Black Sea
> F Aegean Sea - Greece
> F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez
> F Ionian Sea Hold
> F Libyan Sea Supports F Ionian Sea
>
> USSR:
> A Moscow Supports A Siberia - Archangel
>
> Republican_Spain:
> A Gascony Supports F South-Western Approaches - Brest
> A Madrid - Gibraltar
> F Portugal - South-Western Approaches
> F South-Western Approaches - Brest
>
> ***
> Winter 1944 Builds:
>
> Britain
> Remove
>
> Italy
> Build
> Build
>
> Poland
> Build
> Build
> Build
>
> Turkey
> Build?
> Build?
>
> Republican_Spain
> Build
>
> ***
> Ownership of supply centers
>
> Britain: Belgium, Berlin, Edinburgh, Hamburg, Liverpool, London, Netherlands.
> France: None.
> Germany: None.
> Italy: Algiers, Austria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Marsailles, Milan, Morocco, Munich, Naples, Paris, Rome, Serbia, Switzerland.
> Poland: Cracow, Denmark, Finland, Gdynia, Latvia, Leningrad, Lithuania, Moscow, Norway, Rumania, Sweden, Warsaw.
> Turkey: Ankara, Beirut, Bulgaria, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Istanbul, Izmir, Stalingrad, Suez, Tripoli.
> USSR: None.
> Republican_Spain: Brest, Burgos, Madrid, Portugal, Valencia.
>
> Britain: 7 Supply centers, 8 Units: Remove 1.
> France: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
> Germany: 0 Supply centers, 0 Units: Remove 0.
> Italy: 14 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 2.
> Poland: 12 Supply centers, 9 Units: Build 3.
> Turkey: 12 Supply centers, 12 Units: Build 0.
> USSR: 0 Supply center, 0 Units: Remove 0.
> Republican_Spain: 5 Supply centers, 4 Units: Build 1.
>
> ***
> Upcoming Deadlines (all orders are due at 5 PM EST, GMT -5)
> Winter 1944 Retreats and Adjustments, Friday November 12
> Spring 1945 Prelims, Monday November 15
> Spring 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 16
> Summer 1945 Retreats, Thursday November 18
> Fall 1945 Prelims, Friday November 19
> Fall 1945 Orders, Tuesday November 23
> *** |
| dc330: Fa44 Results! (dc330) DrSwordopolis Nov 12, 02:02 am |
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - garry.bledsoe (Nov 11, 2010, 3:29 pm) |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| DC329 COL DONE JUSTIN CONFIRMS B/F OK - Sean2010 (Nov 11, 2010, 3:11 pm) |
Hello Everyone,
Thank you Michael Boutot for GMing this one.
Congratulations to Garry and Bil on their dual monarchy.
My memory is fuzzy here, so I'll try providing an EOG in some form.
1). I decided to try an alternative playing style that I typically don't imploy.
2). I made a map reading error that had cost me. I'd wager that this didn't help spark confidence in my ability to run China successfully.
3). I dually over-estimated my relationship with Russia, and I miscalculated France's response to a Chinese invasion of Britain.
I had tried getting myself into a position where I could follow a more dominant ally for my opening game strategy; however, Britain's successful consolidation in the south and gained my hostility. I thought that I had successfully managed to get Russia onboard. a shift in my opening strategy perhaps too soon. France had seemed non-commital, but I felt that if I got Britain to open himself up to France would follow suit.
1). Russia allowed me to impale myself, and he struck my mostly exposed border.
2). France sided with Britain even though I had offered him Ben and Ubur.
At this point, I believed that the map was facing a Anglo-Franco-Russo box out and isolate alliance, but it was too late. Japan, Holland, Turkey, and China were too far apart and too far apart to coordinate effectively.
I had attempted to attain a survival by ceding Oms to Russia in exchange for Mon, but France had other plans. Unfortunately, I beat Nick to the position of being the first country eliminated.
Sorry for the short EOG, I kept forgetting to log my thoughts as the game progressed.
Good game everyone and thank you again Michael as well as congradulations to Garry and Bill for their 2-way draw.
from Sean
[Reply] |
| DC329 COL DONE JUSTIN CONFIRMS B/F OK - DrSwordopolis (Nov 11, 2010, 2:39 pm) |
Huh.
Well, thanks for the survival, guys. I really didn't expect (my) draw proposal to go through! This game was very well-played by Garry and Bill, and they deserve the draw. And the rest of us played okay too. At least at times.  Don't think I'm going to send an EOG out on this one just because of how very, very quiet it was for much of the game.
But I did enjoy playing, and thank you all for the challenge. Also to Vegas for GMing. The adjudication was always prompt and virtually mistake-free.
Cheers,
-Nick
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, MICHAEL BOUTOT <vegas_iwish(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Congrats to winners & all players. Will adj the game info on DC in a few days & wrap things up.[Reply] |
| DC329 COL DONE JUSTIN CONFIRMS B/F OK - vegas_iwish (Nov 11, 2010, 1:44 pm) |
| Congrats to winners & all players. Will adj the game info on DC in a few days & wrap things up. [Reply] |
| DC329 COL DONE JUSTIN CONFIRMS B/F OK (dc329) DrSwordopolis Nov 11, 02:39 pm |
Huh.
Well, thanks for the survival, guys. I really didn't expect (my) draw proposal to go through! This game was very well-played by Garry and Bill, and they deserve the draw. And the rest of us played okay too. At least at times. Don't think I'm going to send an EOG out on this one just because of how very, very quiet it was for much of the game.
But I did enjoy playing, and thank you all for the challenge. Also to Vegas for GMing. The adjudication was always prompt and virtually mistake-free.
Cheers,
-Nick
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, MICHAEL BOUTOT <vegas_iwish(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Congrats to winners & all players. Will adj the game info on DC in a few days & wrap things up. |
| DC329 COL DONE JUSTIN CONFIRMS B/F OK (dc329) Sean2010 Nov 11, 03:11 pm |
Hello Everyone,
Thank you Michael Boutot for GMing this one.
Congratulations to Garry and Bil on their dual monarchy.
My memory is fuzzy here, so I'll try providing an EOG in some form.
1). I decided to try an alternative playing style that I typically don't imploy.
2). I made a map reading error that had cost me. I'd wager that this didn't help spark confidence in my ability to run China successfully.
3). I dually over-estimated my relationship with Russia, and I miscalculated France's response to a Chinese invasion of Britain.
I had tried getting myself into a position where I could follow a more dominant ally for my opening game strategy; however, Britain's successful consolidation in the south and gained my hostility. I thought that I had successfully managed to get Russia onboard. a shift in my opening strategy perhaps too soon. France had seemed non-commital, but I felt that if I got Britain to open himself up to France would follow suit.
1). Russia allowed me to impale myself, and he struck my mostly exposed border.
2). France sided with Britain even though I had offered him Ben and Ubur.
At this point, I believed that the map was facing a Anglo-Franco-Russo box out and isolate alliance, but it was too late. Japan, Holland, Turkey, and China were too far apart and too far apart to coordinate effectively.
I had attempted to attain a survival by ceding Oms to Russia in exchange for Mon, but France had other plans. Unfortunately, I beat Nick to the position of being the first country eliminated.
Sorry for the short EOG, I kept forgetting to log my thoughts as the game progressed.
Good game everyone and thank you again Michael as well as congradulations to Garry and Bill for their 2-way draw.
from Sean
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - s2000chops (Nov 11, 2010, 11:25 am) |
I think, for the same reason, that order #2 (with A Bel - Par) should also be valid. Par is not a valid destination from Belgium, so the move is invalid and the unit holds.
The NAF case is the trickiest one; what's the wording on armies being convoyed?[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) garry.bledsoe Nov 11, 03:29 pm |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| DC 345: F1902 Rabid Were-Hamsters - untitled36 (Nov 11, 2010, 8:24 am) |
Our discussions *did* go something like that. With Hembrians speaking some foreign language and then kicking me wih their collective shoe. Yet the Were-Hamsters shall rise again!
Let's go with:
F Denmark - Helgoland Bight
F Norway - North Sea
Final.
[Reply] |
| DC344: Spring 1938 Moves - charlesf (Nov 11, 2010, 4:54 am) |
Hi guys,
perhaps there some hidden treasures just east of the map's edge?
For numerous powers are heading in that direction, perhaps most
notably Germany, Italy, Poland and Turkey.
Next to the East, convoys also appear to be en vogue as
we're now witnessing three such operations.
BTW, I'm happy to say that Robert Stein's about to run a 1648
game. Very much looking forward to having that variant GMed by
someone other than me as well as seeing the latest variant tweaks
(v3.3) in action. Should you wish to participate in that game, get
in touch with Robert or sign up directly once the game's
advertised on the DC site.
Since there are no pending retreats, we'll skip summer and move on
to Fall 1938. Prelims are due on Monday NLT 6 PM CET.
Happy dipping,
Charles
----------
PLAYERS:
??? BRITAIN: Jimmy Ghostine <Jimmy.Ghostine(at)vtmednet.org>
??? FRANCE: Matthew Kelly <kelly058(at)verizon.net>
(Replacement Spring 1937)
??? GERMANY: Dirk Knemeyer <dirk(at)knemeyer.com>
??? ITALY & NAT. SPAIN: Andrew Tanner <feanorsfirstborn(at)gmail.com>
??? POLAND: Daniel Dzikowicz <ddz999cat23(at)yahoo.com>
??? SOVIET UNION & REP. SPAIN: Kyle Overby-Lee <tomjnkns.IL(at)gmail.com>
??? TURKEY: Joao Queiros <jlqueiros3(at)hotmail.com>
HEADLINES:
??? o JERUSALEM FALLS INTO BRITISH
HANDS
???
o FRENCH INCURSION INTO BAVARIA REBUFFED
???
o DANZIGERS
CELEBRATE THEIR LIBERATION FROM POLISH/LEAGUE OF NATIONS YOKE
???
o DUCE PAINTS BALKANS GREEN
??? o WARSAW'S
CHILDREN SENT TO COUNTRYSIDE
??? o "GO EAST,
YOUNG TURK!"
??? o NATIONALISTS
MARCH INTO VALENCIA
PRESS: None. 
ORDERS:
Britain:
F Brest - South-Western Approaches
F Egypt(nc) - Libyan Sea
A Liverpool - Wales
F London - English Channel
F Netherlands - North Sea
F Norway - Norwegian Sea
F Suez - Palestine(nc)
F Atlantic Ocean - Suez (*Bounce*)
France:
A Marseille - Gascony
A Rhineland - Munich (*Bounce*)
Germany:
A Berlin - Greater Poland
A Czechia - Munich (*Bounce*)
F Hamburg Hold
A Munich - Switzerland
A Silesia - Cracow (*Fails*)
A Sweden - Gdynia
F Gulf of Danzig Convoys A Sweden - Gdynia
Italy:
A Milan - Piedmont
A Paris - Burgundy
A Rome - Croatia
A Serbia Supports A Rome - Croatia
A Slovakia Supports A Silesia - Cracow
A Tripoli - Greece
F Aegean Sea Supports A Tripoli - Greece
F Ionian Sea Convoys A Tripoli - Greece
Poland:
A Cracow Supports A Rumania - Western Ukraine (*Cut*)
F Latvia - Estonia
A Lithuania - Latvia
A Rumania - Western Ukraine
A Volhynia - Byelorussia (*Fails*)
A Warsaw Supports A Cracow
Turkey:
F Ankara(sc) - Eastern Mediterranean (*Fails*)
A Bulgaria - Eastern Anatolia
A Kurdistan Supports A Stalingrad - Iran
A Stalingrad - Iran
F Black Sea Convoys A Bulgaria - Eastern Anatolia
F Eastern Mediterranean - Suez (*Bounce*)
USSR:
A Byelorussia - Volhynia (*Fails*)
A Eastern Ukraine - Moscow
F Finland(sc) - Gulf of Bothnia
Nationalist_Spain:
A Madrid - Valencia
Republican_Spain:
A Burgos - Navarra
A Portugal Hold
A Valencia - Catalonia
Belgium:
A Belgium Hold
Greece:
F Greece Hold (*Disbanded*)
Hungary:
A Hungary Hold
Iran:
A Iran Supports A Bulgaria - Stalingrad (*Disbanded*)
Morocco:
A Morocco Hold
Yugoslavia:
A Croatia Supports A Serbia (*Disbanded*)
PENDING RETREATS: None.
SUPPLY CENTER OWNERSHIP (Winter
1937):
?? Britain( : Brest, Edinburgh, Egypt, Liverpool, London, Netherlands, Norway, Suez.
??? France(2): Iraq,
Marseille.
??? Germany(7) Berlin, Czechia, Denmark, Hamburg, Munich, Sweden, Switzerland.
??? Italy(: Algiers, Austria,? Milan, Naples, Paris, Rome, Serbia, Tripoli.
??? Poland(6)Cracow, Gdynia, Latvia, Lithuania, Rumania, Warsaw.
??? Turkey(6)Ankara, Beirut, Bulgaria, Istanbul, Izmir, Stalingrad.
??? USSR(3): Finland, Leningrad, Moscow.
??? Nationalist Spain(1): Madrid.
??? Republican Spain(3): Burgos, Portugal, Valencia.
??? Others(6): Belgium, Croatia (Yug.), Greece, Hungary,
Iran, Morocco.
DEADLINE SCHEDULE: (all orders are
due NLT 6PM CET (GMT+1)...not local time)
??
o
Fall?1938
Moves (15)
17 November
??? o
Winter?1938
Retreats/Adjustments: 19
November
??? o Spring 1939
Moves: (22) 24 November
??? o Summer?1939
Retreats: 26 November
ORDERS MAP:
RESULTS MAP:[Reply] |
| (DC 326) Gumball - Spring 1914 Results ** CORRECT... - Corrino (Nov 10, 2010, 9:58 pm) |
Hi Gang!
GM's mistake. Russia actually ordered A Sevastopol to Rumania, not Ukraine. The new result is a bounce with A Ukraine in Rumania and new ending positions for those two armies.
See highlighted changes to orders below. No other changes to results.
Corrected map is attached.
Game page on DC will be corrected without notation. No need to advertise my goof to the world, is there?
Cheers,
Chris
From: C Morse <camorse22(at)yahoo.com>
To: Chris Morse <camorse22(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, November 10, 2010 9:34:36 PM
Subject: (DC 326) Gumball - Spring 1914 Results
"Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out a hat!"
"Again? That trick never works."
"Nothing up my sleeve... Presto!"
"ROAR!"
"Guess I don't know my own strength."
Tonight's episode: "Last
Supper for a Sultan?" or "The Scottish Surprise!"
Brought to you by: "Corrino Crunch. Just one bowl gives you all the energy and support
you need to invade Rumania, convoy to Tunis, and bounce the Brits in Belgium. That's Corrino Crunch! Part of this duplicitous breakfast!"
Let us rejoin our multi-threaded story, already in progress...
. Green grows the grass in Constantinople and Smyrna, as the moisture-rich conquerors from the west push back the Ottoman sands. With a third fleet now on the scene, the long-standing naval void in the Black Sea may soon be coming to an end.
. Ring around the red roses for the Archduke. Isn't that a pretty circle? Well, come to think of it, the loop is broken. How about retreating to Trieste and Adriatic in the Fall? Aesthetics demand it!
. Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. At least, not if you're Italian. "Au revoir," say the Frenchies. "Don't let la porte smack you in the derriere on the way out!"
. "For Pete's sake, who left this dot
lying around unattended?" asks the Tsar. It would appear that the time-honored concept of Finder's Keepers applies even in the realm of Realpolitik.
. And our final scene, in which the plucky underdog picks himself up off the ground and bloodies the nose of the neighborhood bully. In a feat of prescience which I have to say ranks WAY up there in my experience of gunboat diplomacy, the English King chose to have both of his units support the Italian attack on Clyde, thus creating a 3-on-2 battle in favor of Italy, and DESTROYING the invading German fleet!
I admit I shook my head when I first saw the English orders. Wouldn't the smart (safe!) thing be to support Edi? A tip of this GM's cap to you, Your Highness. Well done!
RETREATS: Italian fleet Marseilles has been auto-retreated to Gulf of Lyon, its only legal move. The Italian leader has 24 hours to notify me if he wishes to disband the
unit rather than retreat it.
DEADLINE: Fall 1914 orders are due next Wednesday, November 17, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern US time. Don't delay! Order today!
Cheers,
Chris
Orders as resolved:
============================================
Austria:
F Adriatic Sea - Venice
A Galicia Supports A Ukraine - Rumania (*Cut*)
A Trieste - Serbia
A Tyrolia Hold
A Ukraine - Rumania (*Bounce*)
A Vienna Supports A Galicia
England:
A Edinburgh Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Clyde
A Liverpool Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Clyde
France:
F Brest - English Channel
A Gascony Supports A Piedmont - Marseilles
A Piedmont - Marseilles
F Portugal Supports F Spain(sc)
F Spain(sc) Supports A Piedmont - Marseilles
Germany:
A Belgium Hold
A Berlin Supports A Silesia
A Bohemia - Galicia (*Fails*)
F
Clyde - North Atlantic Ocean (*Disbanded*)
F Irish Sea Supports F Brest
- Mid-Atlantic Ocean (*Void*)
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Western Mediterranean (*Fails*)
A Munich - Tyrolia (*Fails*)
F Norwegian Sea Supports F Clyde - North Atlantic Ocean
A Silesia Supports A Bohemia - Galicia
Italy:
F Bulgaria(sc) - Constantinople
A Greece - Bulgaria
F Ionian Sea - Aegean Sea
F Marseilles - Spain(sc) (*Dislodged*)
F North Atlantic Ocean - Clyde
F North Africa - Mid-Atlantic Ocean (*Fails*)
F Smyrna Supports F Bulgaria(sc) - Constantinople
F Western Mediterranean Supports F Marseilles - Spain(sc) (*Cut*)
Russia:
A Moscow - St Petersburg
A Sevastopol - Rumania (*Bounce*)
A Warsaw Hold
Turkey:
A Ankara - Constantinople (*Fails*)
=============================================[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - FuzzyLogic (Nov 10, 2010, 9:54 pm) |
Upon further review, I believe even #5 is clear:
An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province.
and...
A Fleet can be ordered to move to an adjacent water province or coastal province.
So the manual defines movement as only valid when ordering to an ADJACENT province. (not to the province itself). So Bel-Bel is definitely not a valid move order. The unit holds, support for it holding is valid.[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) s2000chops Nov 11, 11:25 am |
I think, for the same reason, that order #2 (with A Bel - Par) should also be valid. Par is not a valid destination from Belgium, so the move is invalid and the unit holds.
The NAF case is the trickiest one; what's the wording on armies being convoyed? |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) garry.bledsoe Nov 11, 03:29 pm |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - FuzzyLogic (Nov 10, 2010, 9:39 pm) |
The pertinent rules are:
(1) A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a support order that only mentions its province. A unit that is ordered to hold, convoy, support, or not ordered at all can receive support in holding its position. For example, if the order is written “F Den S F Bal,” then the Fleet in Denmark will support the Fleet in the Baltic Sea as long as the Fleet in the Baltic is holding, convoying, or supporting. If the Fleet in the Baltic attempts to move, then the support from Denmark is invalid.
And...
(2) A unit ordered to move can only be supported by a support order that matches the move the unit is trying to make. For example, an Army in Bohemia is ordered to support an Army in Munich in its move to Silesia (A Boh S A Mun–Sil). However, the Army in Munich is ordered to move to Tyrolia instead (A Mun–Tyr). The support order fails because the move it’s supporting isn’t the move that was ordered. This support order doesn’t become a support order to hold.
Case 1:
Germany: A Bel-Lon.
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Clearly, A Bel ordered to London, and the support order does not meet the requirements of (2) above. The support order fails. Ruh simply is not adjacent to Lon, and thus it couldn't even support the Bel moving to Lon if it wanted to.
Case 2:
Germany: A Bel-Par.
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Same as case 1. Ruh could have supported Bel-Par, but it didn't do that.
Case 3:
A Bel-Naf
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Still nothing different here. Bel ordered to move. The support didn't match. CLEARLY fails per the rulebook (2) above.
Case 4:
A Bel-Neptune.
A Bel-Neptune is invalid.
Per the manual again,
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
This order is both not clear AND invalid, and thus it is ignored. The order is completely ignored. Later in the manual, we have:
Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold.
Because Bel was not given an order (the only order given was ignored, thus it has no order) is ordered to hold. Since Bel Holds, Ruh S Bel is VALID.
Case 5:
A Bel-Bel
Not EXPLICITLY covered in the manual, but the manual does go to the extent to define that a MOVE order involves moving from one province to another, and it gives the example that an army in Paris could order to move to Pic, Bre, Bur, or Gas (not "move" to it's own space Paris).
Thus this order is simply invalid and the unit Holds.
Support for Bel Holds is VALID.
Case 6:
Germany: A Bel - no order received
Support for Bel Holds is DEFINITELY VALID.
Manual is clear that an unordered unit is by default ORDERED to HOLD. So supporting an unordered unit in place is perfectly valid.
That's my take! It is my opinions, but I don't see much room for debate on these they're all pretty clearly explained by the manual, aside from #5 which is clear only by similar example in the manual, not explicit statement.[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 10, 09:54 pm |
Upon further review, I believe even #5 is clear:
An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province.
and...
A Fleet can be ordered to move to an adjacent water province or coastal province.
So the manual defines movement as only valid when ordering to an ADJACENT province. (not to the province itself). So Bel-Bel is definitely not a valid move order. The unit holds, support for it holding is valid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) s2000chops Nov 11, 11:25 am |
I think, for the same reason, that order #2 (with A Bel - Par) should also be valid. Par is not a valid destination from Belgium, so the move is invalid and the unit holds.
The NAF case is the trickiest one; what's the wording on armies being convoyed? |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) garry.bledsoe Nov 11, 03:29 pm |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:23 am |
Generally, I agree with poobaloo's interpretations.
Maslow and I did go back to the rulebook. Maslow pointed out the rule stating "An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province" and also "An Army can move across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets." Therefore, by definition, a unit can not be ordered to move from Belgium to Paris (*if* one assumes that the above rules are 100% complete... which is a matter of interpretation).
I countered with the rules stating when a support can be given. The emphasis is on whether a unit is ordered to move or not. And this left me with the same question that Garry asked: Can a unit ordered to move *invalidly* receive support to hold? Is it trying to move? Or does its invalidity make it a holding unit? In fact, I referred to Garry's House Rules in the context of the discussion
In Maslow's interpretation, since invalid orders are, by definition, not allowed, then any invalidly ordered unit reverts to: "Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold."
This is, by the way, how I interpret invalid orders. Still, what has been missing is an overt statement in the rules that an invalid movement order becomes an order to hold.
Mike Sims cited the following rule: "Any vague or invalid orders are ignored." Unfortunately... that rule appears in a section entitled "Writing Build and Disbandments". It clearly refers specifically to adjustments. There is not a complementary rule for movement orders.
In short... I see no clear correct answer.
Myself, I think that the general practice of "Invalid orders become orders to hold" takes precedence, and I would adjudicate as though all such units were ordered from the outset to hold.
Note: this is *not* how RP works. Or the judges. They will treat an invalid movement order as an attempt to move.
Like others, I agree that the really tricky scenario was A Bel-NAf. The rules say:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
A final thought: I have never encountered any of these scenarios in a real game. (And I hope that I never do).
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 13, 12:12 am |
Aahhhh, dang it I apparently didn't actually post my response. Crud, and it was so brilliant and funny and intellectually stunning! Well, here's take 2. And if it sucks, just know there is a better version somewhere in the ether. Just out of reach...
So initially I thought Adam's comeback was pretty good. It seems to destroy my puzzle pretty quickly. But looking at the wording, it does nothing of the sort. If anything, it further complicates the matter. If the unit COULD move to a province via convoy (as described before), then the support should be relevant. But if the unit is actually convoyed, then the support is invalid per Adam's reference. We can see how this would really screw things up, perhaps forcing Nth to convoy a foreign unit against itself in Lon to prevent that unit from giving support against Lon. And then maybe that player outsmarts the Nth player and actually orders TO Lon, sabotaging the saboteur.
Now obviously what I am saying is wrong. There is no way NAf can support Yor to Lon just because there is a fleet in MAO and ECH. I bring it up to say the rules are very unclear in many instances. As for the original rules reference from Sims, if the rule was "A unit can give support to or against a province if the provinces border AND if the unit (army or fleet (on a certain coast if applicable)) in the province of origin could move to the destination this turn." This clarifies the whole situation. But that is not as the rule is written, and I think we should discuss that.
On that, the cited rule really only forbids something like Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the word 'could.' Bel COULD move to Lon via Nth, and therefore Bel could support an attack against Lon regardless of what Nth does. Or perhaps a GM might insist Bel COULDN'T actually move because the fleet did something else besides convoy. In that case what if Nth C Bel to Lon? Then Bel can support because it COULD have moved. That's a different situation than Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. I feel we'd be wrongly applying a specific rule to a larger situation. It's like deducing someone that doesn't like grape juice doesn't like sugar because sugar is in grape juice. It's a pretty huge leap..... |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 09:49 am |
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any.
So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?
A move that is perfectly valid (and common nonetheless) in many game scenarios? |
| Reply notification (Community) AceRimmer Nov 15, 10:56 am |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| (DC 326) Gumball - Spring 1914 Results - Corrino (Nov 10, 2010, 8:34 pm) |
"Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out a hat!"
"Again? That trick never works."
"Nothing up my sleeve... Presto!"
"ROAR!"
"Guess I don't know my own strength."
Tonight's episode: "Last Supper for a Sultan?" or "The Scottish Surprise!"
Brought to you by: "Corrino Crunch. Just one bowl gives you all the energy and support
you need to invade Rumania, convoy to Tunis, and bounce the Brits in Belgium. That's Corrino Crunch! Part of this duplicitous breakfast!"
Let us rejoin our multi-threaded story, already in progress...
. Green grows the grass in Constantinople and Smyrna, as the moisture-rich conquerors from the west push back the Ottoman sands. With a third fleet now on the scene, the long-standing naval void in the Black Sea may soon be coming to an end.
. Ring around the red roses for the Archduke. Isn't that a pretty circle? Well, come to think of it, the loop is broken. How about retreating to Trieste and Adriatic in the Fall? Aesthetics demand it!
. Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. At least, not if you're Italian. "Au revoir," say the Frenchies. "Don't let la porte smack you in the derriere on the way out!"
. "For Pete's sake, who left this dot
lying around unattended?" asks the Tsar. It would appear that the time-honored concept of Finder's Keepers applies even in the realm of Realpolitik.
. And our final scene, in which the plucky underdog picks himself up off the ground and bloodies the nose of the neighborhood bully. In a feat of prescience which I have to say ranks WAY up there in my experience of gunboat diplomacy, the English King chose to have both of his units support the Italian attack on Clyde, thus creating a 3-on-2 battle in favor of Italy, and DESTROYING the invading German fleet!
I admit I shook my head when I first saw the English orders. Wouldn't the smart (safe!) thing be to support Edi? A tip of this GM's cap to you, Your Highness. Well done!
RETREATS: Italian fleet Marseilles has been auto-retreated to Gulf of Lyon, its only legal move. The Italian leader has 24 hours to notify me if he wishes to disband the
unit rather than retreat it.
DEADLINE: Fall 1914 orders are due next Wednesday, November 17, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern US time. Don't delay! Order today!
Cheers,
Chris
Orders as resolved:
============================================
Austria:
F Adriatic Sea - Venice
A Galicia Supports A Ukraine - Rumania (*Cut*)
A Trieste - Serbia
A Tyrolia Hold
A Ukraine - Rumania
A Vienna Supports A Galicia
England:
A Edinburgh Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Clyde
A Liverpool Supports F North Atlantic Ocean - Clyde
France:
F Brest - English Channel
A Gascony Supports A Piedmont - Marseilles
A Piedmont - Marseilles
F Portugal Supports F Spain(sc)
F Spain(sc) Supports A Piedmont - Marseilles
Germany:
A Belgium Hold
A Berlin Supports A Silesia
A Bohemia - Galicia (*Fails*)
F Clyde - North Atlantic Ocean (*Disbanded*)
F Irish Sea Supports F Brest
- Mid-Atlantic Ocean (*Void*)
F Mid-Atlantic Ocean - Western Mediterranean (*Fails*)
A Munich - Tyrolia (*Fails*)
F Norwegian Sea Supports F Clyde - North Atlantic Ocean
A Silesia Supports A Bohemia - Galicia
Italy:
F Bulgaria(sc) - Constantinople
A Greece - Bulgaria
F Ionian Sea - Aegean Sea
F Marseilles - Spain(sc) (*Dislodged*)
F North Atlantic Ocean - Clyde
F North Africa - Mid-Atlantic Ocean (*Fails*)
F Smyrna Supports F Bulgaria(sc) - Constantinople
F Western Mediterranean Supports F Marseilles - Spain(sc) (*Cut*)
Russia:
A Moscow - St Petersburg
A Sevastopol - Ukraine
A Warsaw Hold
Turkey:
A Ankara - Constantinople (*Fails*)
=============================================[Reply] |
| DC329 COL GAME OVER? - vegas_iwish (Nov 10, 2010, 7:05 pm) |
| No orders from Justin but voted yes to any draw last time so the assumption is that stands. Please pipe up if not the case. B/F is the outcome. Will confirm when hear back or after a few days. [Reply] |
| DC 345: F1902 Rabid Were-Hamsters - AceRimmer (Nov 10, 2010, 3:42 pm) |
Tomorrow is Veteran???s Day. I won???t be around. So, Autumn 1902 retreats are due on Friday at 3:00 CST (21:00 GMT). The retreats are both from??? yup. The Were-Hamsters.
The Were-Hamster fleet in Denmark may retreat to Baltic Sea, Helgoland Bight, Skagerrak, or OTB.
The Were-Hamster fleet in Norway may retreat to Barents Sea, North Sea, St. Petersburg (nc), or OTB.
Press from the Democratic Roman Empire:
The Senate is dead, may the Empire rule.
Press from Hembria:
My moves may speak for themselves, but I thought a little explanation was in order. I ask you one question: how would you react if your discussions went like this: http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/evil-hamster-attack/1glhar6j2?from=en-ca-hpquad
Were-hamsters or just hamsters, I've taken my rabies shot and I'm ready for war!
In case you???ve missed it, the Were-Hamsters were attacked by a coalition of Hembrian and Itean forces. Things did not go well for the Were-Hamsters. Rumors are that they were betrayed by a Gerbil spy. The results are a little complicated, but The One Who Will Win loses Berlin and Norway for a net -2. Itea loses Denmark and gains Norway for no net change. Which, of course, leaves Hembria at +1. Hembria exhibits an unusual trend from this year: all the countries that had a net gain this year gained *two* centers AND *lost* one center. Funky.
In fact, let???s review that scoreboard, shall we? It???ll help prep you for next Monday???s adjustments. (Remember, we???re using chaos builds).
Assuming that the Were-Hamsters do not retreat off the board, this year???s winners are:
Adaria (+Belgium, +Spain, -Marseilles): +1
Hembria (+Berlin, +Norway, -Belgium): +1
Trigspor (+Marseilles, +Venice, -Spain): +1
The no-change crew:
Dulceria
Itea (+Norway, -Denmark)
Zonotrichia
And the oppressed:
DRE (-Venice): -1
The One Who Will Win (-Berlin, -Norway): -2
The Standings:
Adaria 7
Hembria 6
Zonotrichia 6
Trigspor 5
Dulceria 3
The One Who Will Win 3
Democratic Roman Empire 2
Itea 2
For the record, if you had asked me before S1901 what the standings would be right now, you???d see that I don???t know what the heck I???m talking about. Don???t get me wrong??? I got a couple of picks right??? but on the whole, this is not what I expected.
Fall 1902 Adjudication:
Adaria:
Wal to ECH
ECH to Bel
Gas to Spa
Tus S Tri to Ven
TyS to Tun
Pie S Mun to Tyr
Democratic Roman Empire:
A Rome s F Naples
F Naples s A Rome
F ION ??? Greece
Dulceria:
F Constantinople S F Armenia - Ankara
F Armenia - Ankara
F Smyrna S F Constantinople
Hembria:
F Norwegian Sea Supports F Skagarrak - Norway
F North Sea - Denmark
A Kiel Supports F North Sea - Denmark
A Munich - Berlin
A Bohemia ??? Silesia
Itea:
F Ska - Nwy
A Swe S F Ska ??? Nwy
The One Who Will Win:
F Denmark Supports A Finland - Sweden
A Finland - Sweden
F Norway Supports A Finland - Sweden
A Ukraine Supports A Warsaw - Galicia
A Warsaw ??? Galicia
Trigspor:
F WMe -> Tun
F Mars Hold
A Tri -> Ven
A Gre S Bul
Zonotrichia:
F Sevastopol S A Serbia - Rumania
F Black Sea - Ankara
A Serbia - Rumania
A Bulgaria S A Greece
A Budapest - Galicia
A Vienna S A Budapest - Galicia[Reply] |
| DC 345: F1902 Rabid Were-Hamsters (dc345) untitled36 Nov 11, 08:24 am |
Our discussions *did* go something like that. With Hembrians speaking some foreign language and then kicking me wih their collective shoe. Yet the Were-Hamsters shall rise again!
Let's go with:
F Denmark - Helgoland Bight
F Norway - North Sea
Final.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question - AceRimmer (Nov 10, 2010, 10:06 am) |
Maslow and I have been having a conversation about supports offered to invalidly ordered units. I am curious what other GMs think. Since we're soliciting opinions, we will wait a little while before venturing our own.
Here are some examples. In each case, say whether the unit in Belgium receives support or cannot receive support. If you can, please explain where you draw the line. There are not (to my knowledge) any correct answers, except for the first one.
In all cases, we'll assume:
France: F ECh S A Pic-Bel, A Pic-Bel
Germany: A Ruh S A Bel
Case 1:
Germany: A Bel-Lon
Case 2:
Germany: A Bel-Par
Case 3:
Germany: A Bel-NAf
(When there is no fleet in MAO)
Case 4:
Germany: A Bel-Neptune
Case 5:
Germany: A Bel-Bel
Case 6:
Germany: A Bel - no order received
(Note: this is not an NMR for Germany, just the unit).
Adam[Reply] |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 10, 09:39 pm |
The pertinent rules are:
(1) A unit not ordered to move can be supported by a support order that only mentions its province. A unit that is ordered to hold, convoy, support, or not ordered at all can receive support in holding its position. For example, if the order is written “F Den S F Bal,” then the Fleet in Denmark will support the Fleet in the Baltic Sea as long as the Fleet in the Baltic is holding, convoying, or supporting. If the Fleet in the Baltic attempts to move, then the support from Denmark is invalid.
And...
(2) A unit ordered to move can only be supported by a support order that matches the move the unit is trying to make. For example, an Army in Bohemia is ordered to support an Army in Munich in its move to Silesia (A Boh S A Mun–Sil). However, the Army in Munich is ordered to move to Tyrolia instead (A Mun–Tyr). The support order fails because the move it’s supporting isn’t the move that was ordered. This support order doesn’t become a support order to hold.
Case 1:
Germany: A Bel-Lon.
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Clearly, A Bel ordered to London, and the support order does not meet the requirements of (2) above. The support order fails. Ruh simply is not adjacent to Lon, and thus it couldn't even support the Bel moving to Lon if it wanted to.
Case 2:
Germany: A Bel-Par.
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Same as case 1. Ruh could have supported Bel-Par, but it didn't do that.
Case 3:
A Bel-Naf
Support of Bel Holding FAILS.
Still nothing different here. Bel ordered to move. The support didn't match. CLEARLY fails per the rulebook (2) above.
Case 4:
A Bel-Neptune.
A Bel-Neptune is invalid.
Per the manual again,
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
This order is both not clear AND invalid, and thus it is ignored. The order is completely ignored. Later in the manual, we have:
Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold.
Because Bel was not given an order (the only order given was ignored, thus it has no order) is ordered to hold. Since Bel Holds, Ruh S Bel is VALID.
Case 5:
A Bel-Bel
Not EXPLICITLY covered in the manual, but the manual does go to the extent to define that a MOVE order involves moving from one province to another, and it gives the example that an army in Paris could order to move to Pic, Bre, Bur, or Gas (not "move" to it's own space Paris).
Thus this order is simply invalid and the unit Holds.
Support for Bel Holds is VALID.
Case 6:
Germany: A Bel - no order received
Support for Bel Holds is DEFINITELY VALID.
Manual is clear that an unordered unit is by default ORDERED to HOLD. So supporting an unordered unit in place is perfectly valid.
That's my take! It is my opinions, but I don't see much room for debate on these they're all pretty clearly explained by the manual, aside from #5 which is clear only by similar example in the manual, not explicit statement. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 10, 09:54 pm |
Upon further review, I believe even #5 is clear:
An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province.
and...
A Fleet can be ordered to move to an adjacent water province or coastal province.
So the manual defines movement as only valid when ordering to an ADJACENT province. (not to the province itself). So Bel-Bel is definitely not a valid move order. The unit holds, support for it holding is valid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) s2000chops Nov 11, 11:25 am |
I think, for the same reason, that order #2 (with A Bel - Par) should also be valid. Par is not a valid destination from Belgium, so the move is invalid and the unit holds.
The NAF case is the trickiest one; what's the wording on armies being convoyed? |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) garry.bledsoe Nov 11, 03:29 pm |
So I have a bit of a different take. I think that the rules are only sort of black and white because they still require a GM to make a decision - does a typo/mistake by the player allow a unit to hold? That is essentially what scenarios 2,3 and 5 are asking a GM to do. #4 is different because the GM should clearly decipher that as a Hold order or NMR (which is a hold)- all funny thing are Hold orders, right?
I guess my problem with it is basically self-correcting a player error which then gives them the power to hold and receive support. A player error should not give them the right to receive support in my opinion (however, I could see it as a diplomatic ploy...oh, darn, I just misordered).
So in that rendering, scenarios 2,3 and 5 are all invalid support orders because they are errors but the attempt to move was there (my opinion). HOWEVER, if you go with the opposite then all three should be valid because of what Sean points out.
Should we put out clarification or let GM's handle it through their house rules as they prefer?
lord of the march |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 12, 02:07 am |
I won't spoil any of the opinions Adam and I have in store, but I was reviewing the rules per Michael's reference, and found this gem:
"The province to which a unit is providing support must be one to which the supporting unit could have legally moved to that turn." I then considered it and thought up this conundrum:
Let us say there are 3 French units:
A Pic
A Bel
F ECH
There is a unit in Lon, it is not French, and it doesn't matter whose it is because it is holding throughout these examples.
A Pic to Lon
A Bel supports Pic to Lon
F ECH convoys Pic to Lon
This appears as though the Bel support is irrelevant (I use relevant and irrelevant in place of valid/invalid when speaking of supports, and the reasoning will be explained in Adam's post). A shrewd player might point out, though, Bel "could have legally moved to" Lon via ECH. A wise GM would say, no, because ECH can only convoy one unit, and therefore the French player could NOT legally do both moves to Lon, and therefore the support is irrelevant.
What if there is also a French fleet in Nth? Now we can:
Pic to Lon
Bel to Lon
ECH convoys Pic to Lon
Nth convoys Bel to Lon.
Indeed this is wholly legal. Both units can be moved to London. So Bel should be able to provide support. The advantages are obvious, now Nth needs to be dislodged to disrupt the convoy which prevents Bel from reaching Lon for the support to be irrelevant. This requires more than one unit just cutting support....
I guess it depends a lot on the definition of "could." Technically if a foreign fleet in Nth is present, the player could argue the unit in Bel COULD have been convoyed, and therefore the support is relevant, even though it was not. Or the GM could require the convoy to actually have been ordered. Is it that the unit possibly providing the convoy was present, or the the unit possibly providing the convoy actually order it? Once the convoy order is published, the unit COULD move across the water, if it was ordered. But it ordered to support. But it could have gone there, so the support must be relevant, technically speaking. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:14 am |
Maslow, I'd say that your question is rendered moot by the section of the rules entitled:
"Support" Cannot Be Convoyed.
At least that puzzle is easily solved |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 12, 10:23 am |
Generally, I agree with poobaloo's interpretations.
Maslow and I did go back to the rulebook. Maslow pointed out the rule stating "An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coastal province" and also "An Army can move across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets." Therefore, by definition, a unit can not be ordered to move from Belgium to Paris (*if* one assumes that the above rules are 100% complete... which is a matter of interpretation).
I countered with the rules stating when a support can be given. The emphasis is on whether a unit is ordered to move or not. And this left me with the same question that Garry asked: Can a unit ordered to move *invalidly* receive support to hold? Is it trying to move? Or does its invalidity make it a holding unit? In fact, I referred to Garry's House Rules in the context of the discussion
In Maslow's interpretation, since invalid orders are, by definition, not allowed, then any invalidly ordered unit reverts to: "Not giving a unit an order is interpreted as ordering it to hold."
This is, by the way, how I interpret invalid orders. Still, what has been missing is an overt statement in the rules that an invalid movement order becomes an order to hold.
Mike Sims cited the following rule: "Any vague or invalid orders are ignored." Unfortunately... that rule appears in a section entitled "Writing Build and Disbandments". It clearly refers specifically to adjustments. There is not a complementary rule for movement orders.
In short... I see no clear correct answer.
Myself, I think that the general practice of "Invalid orders become orders to hold" takes precedence, and I would adjudicate as though all such units were ordered from the outset to hold.
Note: this is *not* how RP works. Or the judges. They will treat an invalid movement order as an attempt to move.
Like others, I agree that the really tricky scenario was A Bel-NAf. The rules say:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
A final thought: I have never encountered any of these scenarios in a real game. (And I hope that I never do).
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 13, 12:12 am |
Aahhhh, dang it I apparently didn't actually post my response. Crud, and it was so brilliant and funny and intellectually stunning! Well, here's take 2. And if it sucks, just know there is a better version somewhere in the ether. Just out of reach...
So initially I thought Adam's comeback was pretty good. It seems to destroy my puzzle pretty quickly. But looking at the wording, it does nothing of the sort. If anything, it further complicates the matter. If the unit COULD move to a province via convoy (as described before), then the support should be relevant. But if the unit is actually convoyed, then the support is invalid per Adam's reference. We can see how this would really screw things up, perhaps forcing Nth to convoy a foreign unit against itself in Lon to prevent that unit from giving support against Lon. And then maybe that player outsmarts the Nth player and actually orders TO Lon, sabotaging the saboteur.
Now obviously what I am saying is wrong. There is no way NAf can support Yor to Lon just because there is a fleet in MAO and ECH. I bring it up to say the rules are very unclear in many instances. As for the original rules reference from Sims, if the rule was "A unit can give support to or against a province if the provinces border AND if the unit (army or fleet (on a certain coast if applicable)) in the province of origin could move to the destination this turn." This clarifies the whole situation. But that is not as the rule is written, and I think we should discuss that.
On that, the cited rule really only forbids something like Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. Which is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the word 'could.' Bel COULD move to Lon via Nth, and therefore Bel could support an attack against Lon regardless of what Nth does. Or perhaps a GM might insist Bel COULDN'T actually move because the fleet did something else besides convoy. In that case what if Nth C Bel to Lon? Then Bel can support because it COULD have moved. That's a different situation than Nth C Bel S Pic to Lon. I feel we'd be wrongly applying a specific rule to a larger situation. It's like deducing someone that doesn't like grape juice doesn't like sugar because sugar is in grape juice. It's a pretty huge leap..... |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 09:49 am |
I would argue that, since there is not an unbroken chain of fleets running from Belgium to NAf, the army's order is invalid and should be treated as A Bel Holds.
I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any.
So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?
A move that is perfectly valid (and common nonetheless) in many game scenarios? |
| Reply notification (Community) AceRimmer Nov 15, 10:56 am |
"I would insist that the valid set of moves for a unit are not dependent on the lack or presence of other units. I think if you order A Lon-Pic, even if there is no fleet in ENG, it is as valid a move order as any."
That's how Maslow argued it in our conversation before posting it to the community, too.
"So are you saying, Adam, that if Lon-Pic, and no F ENG, you would order that as invalid and therefore Holds?"
Yes, I would.
I should note, this is different from the common GM practice of not interpreting a unit's order based on the *orders* of another unit. What I'm suggesting is that I'm interpreting a unit's order based on the *presence* of another unit.
In a manner, I think this interpretation is a corollary to that of ruling A Bel-Par as invalid (which has been discussed earlier in this forum thread). According to the rules:
"An Army can be ordered to move into an adjacent inland or coast province... [or] across water provinces from one coastal province to another via one or more Fleets. This is called a "convoy.""
By this, we note that Paris is neither adjacent to Belgium, nor is it an eligible destination for a convoy. Therefore, A Bel-Par is invalid, and the unit holds. (Note: we assume that the above rule is complete).
So, returning to the impossible convoy of A BEL-NAF when there is no fleet in MAO, the rules state:
"If Fleets occupy adjacent water provinces, an Army can be convoyed through all these water provinces on one turn, landing in a coastal province adjacent to the final Fleet in the chain."
Combining the two rules, and beginning with the first, we note that North Africa is not adjacent to Belgium, so a direct move is (obviously) impossible. However, they are both coastal provinces, so a convoy could be possible. Unfortunately, switching to the rule for convoys across several water provinces, we can clearly see that there is not a chain of fleets between BEL and NAF. Therefore, assuming this second rule is complete unto itself, an army _cannot_ be convoyed when there are no fleets present to make the convoy.
The second rule does not conflict with the first, because the first clearly refers to coast-to-coast movement as a convoy and implicitly assumes that all pre-conditions for a convoy have been satisfied.
At least, that's how I see it
In closing, I want to clarify:
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is invalid if there is no fleet in MAO.
A BEL-ECH-MAO-NAF is valid if there are fleets in both ECH and MAO, even if those fleets do not attempt to convoy the army. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 15, 11:20 am |
I see the logic, it just seems you should be able to determine if a unit's order is valid w/o regard for other units' positions. i.e. you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are".
My answer would be YES, A Lon-Bel (with an army in Lon) IS a valid, legally written move order. The presence of other units in nearby sea zones may affect the success of this order, but not it's legality as a valid order.
Sure it "cannot be convoyed" by your rules below. But that doesn't mean ordering it to do so is illegal. The move just fails. Same thing w if someone actually in ENG fails to order the convoy order.
The impossibility of the move does not make it illegal or invalid. |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) Blueraider0 Nov 19, 01:49 am |
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal? I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid, But even then, you say "you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"." Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is. If Lon to Bel is a valid order whether a convoy is possible or not, Lon to Bel should be valid whether there is a unit in Lon or not. Lon to Bel is a valid order - but there might not be a unit in London to move (or, a unit of a different Power). The written order is always going to be valid, even if it cannot be implemented.
But I suppose my definition of a valid move order should be stated. Forgive me if I've already used this analogy. I can write 2+2=5. It is a legitimate thing to write. All those symbols exist, and we all understand what is happening. That said, suspending any 1984 references, it is a false statement. Similarly, I can SAY my mother was Harriet Tubman, but she is not. But I can construct the sentence. It has no necessary root in reality, and requires none. Even dividing by zero CAN be written, even if it cannot be done. When something is written, it must be evaluated based on accepted definitions. Then the statement can be verified against known facts. 2+2=5 is false. But are Frxhhz more likely to eat a marshmallow than a Tredkfl? It's an unanswerable question, because two of the terms are undefined. It is not true or false, it's nonsensical.
A move order is X to Y. Perhaps X --> Y or X moves to Y. It is one province, some symbol or word indicating movement, and another province. The first province is the origin, the second the destination. Neptune to G4 is a valid move order, even though it makes absolutely no sense. It cannot be translated onto the board, but the order is not invalid. The best you could do is call it irrelevant.
Even moves traditionally understood as illegal If I am England, it is acceptable for the GM to assume I am ordering my own units. Therefore if I order a different power's unit, the GM has two options. I either mistakenly thought it was mine or am cunningly attempting to use it. In the first case, the order (let's say, Par to Bur) is valid, but irrelevant, because there is no English unit in Par. In the second, the order is irrelevant because I simply cannot under any circumstance order an opponent's unit. But the order is valid anyway, even if my intention was a direct violation of the rules. If I say "FRENCH Par to Bur," is that illegal? It's illegal for the MOVE to happen, but what about the order? That depends on your interpretation of the rule about ordering other units (I actually can't find it in the rulebook. Maybe it's not there, because the whole idea is so clearly against the rules. Battleship doesn't specify you can't yell Fire and then as your opponent panics you look at where there ships are....
The only move I'd say is definitely illegal is a move to Switzerland. Unlike Neptune or G4 or Mushroom Kingdom, the rules explicitly state Switzerland cannot be occupied. Actually, even then MOVING to Switzerland is not forbidden, just occupying it. So the move is only illegal if it would cause the player to occupy it. If two players move to Switzerland and bounce, technically Switzerland remained empty because of the usual game mechanics, not because of any special rules.
Another thought, a Power cannot dislodge or support the dislodgement of its own unit. Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units. Let's say Bel to Ruh and Hol supports Lon to Bel and ECH convoys Lon to Bel, all owned by the same Power. Mun goes to Ruh and bounces Bel. Lon to Bel is now illegal, even if Pic and Bur also supported the move.
So except for situations explicitly stated in the rules, I see no reason to declare any moves illegal, and I find the phrase invalid to be misleading. The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par). |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 08:48 am |
We're in agreement here, no? I can't quite tell these examples are so wacky.
Therefore Lon to Bel might be illegal because of other units.
Lon-Bel is valid even if you have your own army in Bel, cuz you could be ordering Bel-Ruh. If Bel-Ruh fails, then Lon-Bel will fail. But it was still a move order, and so an order of Wal S Lon would fail.
The manual does go to the extent to say that ordering a unit into another unit of yours does NOT cut the support. Therefore it is clearly legal to order a move that you absolutely know is impossible to succeed. (Bel-Ruh and Ruh S Mun) Bel-Ruh is still a move order, and Ruh support of Mun is not cut because of the "cannot cut your own support rule". It doesn't say you can't order the movment, just that the support is not cut.
Point is, ordering moves that are "impossible to have the movement succeed" are definitely not disallowed, therefore the impossibility of actual movement resulting from a move order does not rule the order invalid and revert it to Unordered / Hold.
If you order a unit to move, from one province to another, then you have ordered it to move.
If you order Par-Neptune, The GM should look and see if Neptune is a space in this variant. Maybe it is in the "Milky Way" variant. If he can't find a space by that name that is unambiguous (to the GM) then the entire order is ruled invalid and the unit is treated as if unordered.
If that's the case, when would an order ever be invalid or illegal?
Per above. Par-Neptune would be an invalid order. There is no province named Neptune.
I suppose attempting to move a unit that is not one's own, or ordering a unit that does not exist is invalid
Not sure why this example. A GM will skip over flavor text in analyzing orders, including things like "dear GM please accept these orders" - that is not an order in the game sense, it is normal discussion. Orders for anything other than your own units are ignored.
Therefore, it oughtn't depend on even where even the single unit is.
In determining if AN order is valid, sure, it doesn't matter. We can look and say "Is an order of F Con-Bul/ec" a valid way to order Con to the east coast of Bul. Yes it is. But we're talking about the more specific scenario of "what are valid orders for this unit" (which does happen to be somewhere). So IF I have an army in London, what are valid orders for it. That is what we're discussing.
The rest of your post is discussing semantics / word games, and we're not really concerned w the concept of GM trickery here. Like "Yesterday I took my Bell to London for a cleaning." and later alleging to the GM you intended Bel to Lon and the presence of other words before and after it were irrelevant. That's another discussion.
The question of this topic, is "Is A Lon-Bel" a move order in all cases, and I still (I think, agree w you) that it is. So be it that if there is no fleet nearby to convoy it, it is very likely to fail.
The order is fine, it just may not work, whether for that turn (Bel to Lon but no convoy) or forever (Bel to Par).
I think we're in agreement here.
|
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) AceRimmer Nov 19, 11:17 am |
Maslow, I'm going to agree with poobaloo here: your post is discussing semantics / word games.
Chiefly, you seem to be trying to define a difference between invalid and illegal. I'm guessing that your sense of order and precision compels you to discern between the two.
For my part... what I care about is: does the difference affect how an order is actually adjudicated? If it doesn't affect the adjudication, then to be blunt, I don't care.
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
And just to throw a log on the fire, I deny the premise of the following statement, which is alright, because there is no one correct answer (except that the GM's decision is final!):
"you can take a blank board, put a single unit on Lon and say "Is A Lon-Bel valid, legally written move order" and the answer is yes or no, not "it depends where other units are"
Adam |
| For GMs: Invalid order - Support Question (Community) FuzzyLogic Nov 19, 12:05 pm |
So, perhaps, I should restate the issue at hand as I see it:
When should a GM declare that a unit's order is unadjudicable and therefore defaults to 'Unit Holds'?
Ok, so what would your answer to the ? be?
The manual takes a stab at answering:
Any vague or invalid orders are ignored.
Isn't that pretty clear? Any order is enacted as written, unless it's either vague or invalid, in which case it's ignored.
A Lon-Bel. Vague? No. Invalid? No. So it is enacted as written. If a fleet is in ENG and it orders a convoy, the order may succeed. If not, it'll fail.
A Lon-Mun. Vague? No. Invalid? No. Impossible perhaps, but yet a properly written move order from one province to another which will certainly fail.
A Lon-Neptune. Vague? No. Invalid? Yes. (have no idea where Neptune is on this map). So it is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
A Lon-Nor. Vague? Yes. Nor could mean Norway or Norwegian Sea, so it is deemed vague and is ignored. Unordered unit is considered ordered to Hold.
(A GM may consider that one not vague if he considers that an army cannot go to the Norwegian Sea - but vagueness is purely whether it is vague to the GM)
F MAO-Spa. Vague? Yes. Could mean either coast, so ignored, Holds.
F Mar-Spa. Vague? No. Can only go to one coast, so it is not vague. Ordered appropriately.
A Lon-Bol. Vague? Certainly. Bul? Hol? Bel? Any of those would be a slight typo from a valid space, but there is no way to know the intent. Unit Holds.
A Lon-Bra. Vague? Tough one. There is no Bra on the map, but there is Bre, and that seems to make sense, but this would come down to GM interpretation if he considered this vague or not. Personally I think this should be a misorder, as Brest doesn't even contain an 'a' there's no reason to assume this is Bre. |
| Summer 1902 Map - bpynnonen (Nov 09, 2010, 10:08 pm) |
| The orders for Fall 1902 are due next Tuesday at midnight. [Reply] |
| DC 338 Winter 05 Results - derekthefeared2 (Nov 09, 2010, 9:58 pm) |
Here are the winter 05 results. Spring 06 will be due this Sunday at 3:00 PM US Eastern time. Farewell Turkey thanks again for playing until the end.
Austria:
Build A Vienna
England:
Build F London
Build F Liverpool
France:
Build A Paris
Build F Brest
Italy:
Remove F Adriatic Sea
Russia:
Remove A Kiel
Turkey:
Remove A Armenia[Reply] |
| DC 347, Winter 1901 - alwayshunted (Nov 09, 2010, 8:31 pm) |
Hey folks,
The always anticipated first winter season.....
Spring 1902 will be due in a week, November 16, 17:00 MST. That said, I am going on vacation on Saturday, so I have no idea when EXACTLY it will happen. I'm in Hawaii, so I will no doubt have internet. I just don't quite know my schedule yet......
Here are the builds:
----------------------
England:
Build F London
Build F Liverpool
France:
Build F Brest
Build A Paris
Germany:
Build A Munich
Build A Kiel
Italy:
Build A Venice
Build F Naples
Russia:
Build F Sevastopol
Build A Moscow
Turkey:
Build F Ankara
---------------------
Okay, deadline written at the top. Maps attached. Make sure I have it all right. Enjoy.....
Warren[Reply] |
| DC 347, Winter 1901 (dc347) alwayshunted Nov 17, 04:45 pm |
Hey gang, Aloha!
Sorry for the delay, but I can't find a computer to get realpolitik on.... I will try to find a more "friendly" internet cafe, maybe on Friday.
Hang in there. Talk soon.
Warren
|
